Talk:Autodynamics/Archive 1

Bias and POV concerns
While I agree that the article is unjustly biased, why is there nothing on this talk page to justify it ? Unless someone posts the points that should be changed, I see no point in keeping the notice up. 00:15, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

OK, the article takes the POV that special relativity is paradoxical and broken and that autodynamics is today a leading unified theory contender, It needs some supporting citations if those claims are to stand. Gazpacho 06:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine, but for now how do we go around correcting the POV ? We can't wait forever for a fan to support these dubious contentions. Franc28 06:27, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I haven't seen anyone argue that autodynamics is a "leading unified theory contender". It is a theory, like many other theories and deserves the simple, basic respect of being presented as such.  What's at issue here on this autodynamics page is the refusal to offer a neutral presentation of the life, let alone, the theory of one  Dr. Ricardo Carezani.  Instead there are only repeated, endless, tedious attempts to dig up disparaging dismissals of his work in order to eagerly scrawl 'crackpot' epithets on his work.   (For example, the proudly displayed quote from  Wired Magazine  (Oh, yes, we're supposed to say  'popular' Wired Magazine... Being 'popular' makes the crackpot smear quite acceptable, doesn't it?  Well Good Housekeeping and  National Enquirer are also popular, shall we take them too as reliable sources on Carezani or Einstein for that matter?  I don't think so.)  One really wonders what the problem is when a specific club of pseudoencyclopedians are permitted to pretend to be writing an encyclopedic entry, ostensibly a factual report of a subject, without POV judgment, but instead, manages never to address  the life or work of Carezani in anything mildly approaching a neutral report.   Instead, we receive always one more new, superficial, unsupported comment to dismiss it.   Even when they pretend to present the science of the work, they choose the presentation of a confused supporter, rather than turn to the expert on the subject, Carezani himself.  I for one, although it's apparently hopeless, would like to see an article about what Carezani wrote and thought and not what a few biased torpedoes would like me to think about it.  And if that's not possible a one paragraph statement that he was born, lived, worked on an alternative theory of Physics and died would suffice, thank you very much.  One single statement that his theory has not been adopted by mainstream physics would be factual and sufficient. Endless insidious smear  and innuendo dismissals are not.   You see, if I come in  to read an article on Carezani, I am coming in to read an article about Carezani and I'm not not coming in to read what Salsb, Christopher Thomas, Pjacobi and their collaborators may want me to think about him.  4.233.125.39 18:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Re-write
Ummh. This one seemed to be a case for the axe, not the tweezers, so I did a complete re-write.

The old version, if someone desires to transplant something back into article space: Autodynamics is a physics theory discovered by Dr. Ricardo Carezani in the early 1940s that showed Einstein's theory of relativity had inherited a mistake from Hendrik Lorentz. Many around the world see it as the only viable alternative to the paradox ridden theory of special relativity.

Autodynamics provides physicists with working quantum models not just for subatomic interactions but also for universal gravitation. Unlike Special Relativity, the Autodynamics thesis does not exist vicariously but is based on readily available scientific data and rigorous logic. It is here in set out for readers to evaluate for themselves.

Its equations conserve momentum in atomic decay processes, whereas Special Relativity equations does not. SR fabricates the concept of the neutrino to rationalise the excess theoretical momentum inherent in its equations. (A strategy described by its inventor as 'a desperate remedy'). The acceptance of this fabrication means that whenever a new decay process is discovered, SR has to postulate a new type of neutrino. This strategy is further problematical for SR, as external vectors may sometimes make up the missing momentum. AD, does not have this problem. It views the universe as a cyclic process of energy absorption and mass decay, in which nothing is at rest. It is self-energizing, and perpetual (hence the epithet of Autodynamics). By comparison, SR requires an external impetus, of unaccounted origin, to kick start its hypothesis.

General Relativity is an attempt to describe the force of gravity whilst providing no mechanism. Autodynamics has developed the Le Sage Ultramundane Corpuscle (referred to as a Pico-Graviton) by calculating mass increase due to pico-graviton absorption. This simple step has yielded nothing less than a working quantum model for universal gravitation. Based on this mechanism, the AD thesis can predict and calculate the Pioneer Anomaly, Receding Moon, Allais Anomaly, Binary Star Precession, Perihelion Advance and a mechanism for Lunar and Planetary orbits. By comparison, General Relativity can only calculate perihelion of Mercury, which it describes in terms of concepts derived from mathematical modeling. AD's quantum model of gravity is not a generalisation of a special case but the next step in Newton-Le Sage corpuscular thinking.

At the microscopic level AD equations are supported by experiment. Some examples are,


 * Atomic decay
 * Electron-K capture
 * Linear momentum transfer in Nuclear-Nuclear collisions
 * Proton-proton annihilation
 * Electron-electron annihilation

AD equations describe atomic decay and all the above without the need for the neutrino. (SR cannot be applied to linear momentum transfer in nuclear-nuclear collisions).

In the case of Radium E decay, Carezani has proposed a New Radium-E experiment, published in Physics Essays (1988). Subsequent research, however, has uncovered an experiment by MIT scientists Buechner and Van Der Graaf Physics Review (1946). It concurs with Carezani's AD thesis in that it too eliminates the need for the neutrino, and any other vicarious particle.

AD Kinetic Energy equations improve upon the generally accepted equations for the Compton Effect. This has been verified by peer group review, (Physics Essays volume 4, number 1, 1991). It is able to do this on the basis of the AD principle of energy absorption-mass decay, rather than the simpler model of photon strikes electron, photon deviates.

In 1990 Carezani predicted a new particle, which he dubs the electromuon. In 1994, physicists at the Karmen collaboration detected what appears to be this new particle.

AD considers energy to be particulate rather than waveform. It views entropy as being constant and does not support the big bang theory or an expanding universe and does not accept a universal speed limit attributed to light by SR.

I've added the one and only autodynamics book as literature, perhaps this helps it Amazon sales rank, let's obverse (today: #2,429,859 in Books) --Pjacobi 08:44, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Bad rewrite
First, the neutrino is claimed to have been detected because it is detected indirectly. Second, AD is was not invented but discovered because of a mistake in the physics of Lorentz, not Einstein which Einstein accepted without question. Third, an eletro-muon-like particle was discovered after Carezani predicted it.

Also, AD (Autodynamics) is not a theory of "everything" like strings. Strings are admittly invention (by the authors themselves) and Autodynamics was a discovery.


 * Citation for the "electro-muon-like" particle's discovery, please? --Christopher Thomas 01:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Coherent citation for the "electro-muon-like" particle's discovery, please? The closest thing in the current version of the article is a rambling non-peer-reviewed paper about muon decay that starts by making rather dubious claims about energy and momentum as functions of velocity that are easily disproven by tabletop experiments, then claims that conservation of momentum doesn't hold, then derives the results it feels like from there. --Christopher Thomas 20:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree or Not, the facts of what AD is have to be explained
Whether you want to believe or not about Carezani's finding of the physical error in Lorentz's equations, what Autodynamics "is" should be described here, not a commentary on whether people who have not really studied it "believe" in it or not.

The idea of the encyclopedia is describe what something is. Describing "black holes" does not make them correct or incorrect. Describing neutrinos does not make them correct or incorrect. Describing gods from different religions does not make them correct or incorrect.

Autodynamics has a lot of solid math and physics behind it and is not invention throwing out ideas without science. So I feel it best that it, like "heaven", or "Ala" or "worm holes", "Autodynamics" should be described not just thrown around by those who do not study the subject.


 * (By "Ala" do you mean "Allah", perhaps? --RJCraig)

Otherwise, what stops me from going to the black hole, big-bang, worm-hole, special and general relativity pages and change their descriptions to one paragraph and saying they are rubish, even if they are rubish?


 * Wikipedia policy. It makes a difference whether something is taught at universities or not. The Wikipedia documents the current consensus in the field of science, and one person's theories only to the extent they are notable. --Pjacobi 01:14, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Dubious references
I'll open this subsection as a place to discuss the references cited. Regarding the "new RaE experiment" paper, the mass of the beta decay electron seems to have been counted twice, as the atomic weights of the elements include their electrons, and 84Po has one more electron than 83Bi. This pretty much exactly accounts for the "discrepancy" noted by the cited article (1.16 MeV vs. 1.67 MeV).

Secondly, can we _please_ get peer-reviewed articles, if articles are being cited? We only need enough non-reviewed articles to explain what Autodynamics _is_, as only reviewed articles constitute actual evidence for the model. --Christopher Thomas 00:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

What the heck is this stuff?
Come on, I understand your concern about unbias but these statements are simply absurd:

"Whereas in its days of creation, the theory may have had some valid arguments, it considered by most physicists to have evolved into pathological science by now."

What the heck is that? Are you saying AD was ok in the beginning and isn't now?

That statement is not understandable by anyone.

Also, AD is NOT a theory of everything. Strings are an invention (admitted invention) to try and explain everything. AD is not.

Please, don't say things that are not true. Sweeping statements are not part of the unbaised thesis of wiki.

-David de Hilster
 * I've rolled back this and other changes. The "pathological science" statement indicates that it is _presently_ pursued in a pathological manner. I have attempted to clarify this. If you believe that this was _always_ or _never_ the case, then provide citations, and alter the statement accordingly. If you believe the statement should be phrased differently, then rephrase it. I'll keep your modification to the introductory sentence, as the "theory of everything" comment does not appear to be based on cited evidence. --Christopher Thomas 02:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I found this on a page on Geoffrey Sampson's website discussing Chomskian linguistic theory (arguably another example of pseudo-science, albeit a widely accepted one); it felt relevant: "When intelligent people jointly try over several decades to persuade the public to believe a novel idea, and every argument fails, then in practice (though not in logic) one is entitled to infer that the idea is false.  If it were true, better arguments would be available; why has none of these able people managed to formulate one of them?" --RJCraig (9 May)

Please don't republish that rant on the particles
The particles neutrino and electro-muon are not the major thesis of Autodynamics. If you "think" you know about Autodynamics, than I must say that the reposting of that sad "theory of everything" and neutrinos, and has become psuedo science is not an accurate description of Autodynamics.

Please be accurate even if you don't understand it.

Thanks,

-David de Hilster
 * The paragraph correctly points out that the predictions of Autodynamics conflict with the predictions and observations made by mainstream science. Keep removing this statement, and you'll quickly realize that most editors respect NPOV enough to put it back in. If you believe any of the statements made in the article to be incorrect, please provide justification on the talk page, and citations in the article. --Christopher Thomas 02:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi David. Thanks for creating an account which makes communicating on Wikipedia much easier. Regarding the content of the article, it has to be encyclopedic and NPOV. The reader must be given the most important informations first and must not be mislead about the standing of the theory. So, in contrast to Wikinfo, you aren't allowed to write an article from the "sympathetic point of view". It must clearly be stated, that the theory doesn't get measurable support for sixty years, and whereas it may be discussed between physicists in ist early years, it is no longer. --Pjacobi 10:15, 2005 May 6 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the "particle rant" paragraph into something that more accurately describes the claims of Autodynamics. Hopefully this will be acceptable to everyone involved. --Christopher Thomas 13:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Then some more comments where these claims are disproven, would be fine. Otherwise the reader may be lead to the conclusion, that fiddling around with the Lorentz transformation would be a good idea. Out of my head, observed particle trajectories at colliders, synchrotron radiation and cerenkov radiation may be the most likely candidates. --Pjacobi 14:08, 2005 May 6 (UTC)


 * I corrected the interpretation of the AD equations. The equations describe mass being moved using its own energy or mass.  User:dehilster

Corrected Interpretation of AD's equations
I went through the explanation of AD's equations and corrected them. The equations reveal that mass moves at the most fundemental level from the mass itself being used to move it. When the mass reaches C, there is no more mass left.

-David de Hilster


 * I've changed the phrasing of this back to something closer to what I'd originally written, as I feel the comment about "mass being expelled" does not adequately reflect the fact that under AD's equations this transformation is reversible (surely you wouldn't state that the particle "sucks its mass back in" when slowing down?). I haven't put back the equation effects at velocities greater than C, but this is a rather odd omission, as your web pages about AD clearly state that C is "just a number", and not a speed limit. One would therefore expect your equations to explain what happens at superluminal velocities. --Christopher Thomas 6 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)

On the categorization
As much as I think Autodynamics is utter nonsense (look at their 'refutation' of the Lorentz transformation and you'll see what I mean), we can't really re-cat it into pseudophysics until we have a good authority demonstrating why it is so. Agree? Disagree? Cynicalkane 4 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)

deleted text
An anon poster had placed this here, and then removed it to the article text. I've moved it back, but kept the web link. Salsb 20:07, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

begin deleted text
Physics Essays has been established as an international journal dedicated to theoretical and experimental aspects of fundamental problems in Physics and, generally, to the advancement of basic knowledge of Physics. The Journal’s mandate is to publish rigorous and methodological examinations of past, current, and advanced concepts, methods and results in physics research. Physics Essays dedicates itself to the publication of stimulating exploratory, and original papers in a variety of physics disciplines, such as spectroscopy, quantum mechanics, particle physics, electromagnetic theory, astrophysics, space physics, mathematical methods in physics, plasma physics, philosophical aspects of physics, chemical physics, and relativity.

The Journal will endeavour to reflect the environment in which best research is carried out by providing a stimulating publication outlet for both the expression of ideas and reporting of results, within the rigour of the scientific discipline with which the Journal is concerned, namely Physics. As a dynamic new journal, Physics Essays combines rigorous scientific reporting with freedom to express ideas based on logically sound and well balanced points of view.

Physics Essays, an international, peer-reviewed journal of impeccable quality, supported and advised by a renowned Editorial Board, has been established as the sole journal to act as the voice of the international physics community in a truly interdisciplinary fashion.

end deleted text
This is their "peer-review" statement: This is not what would normally be considered peer-review, and Physics Essays is moderately well-known as a vanity press journal.
 * "Realizing the interchangeable roles of authors and reviewers, the positive aspect of the reviewing process will be retained by providing the authors with the reviewers' comments. Authors should judge which part of the reviewers' suggestions are appropriate to improve the quality of his or her paper. "
 * Here is the result of an abstract and citation search for autodynamics on Web of Science:
 * Carezani RL
 * Nucleus-nucleus collision and autodynamics
 * PHYSICS ESSAYS 10 (2): 193-197 JUN 1997
 * Times Cited: 0
 * CAREZANI RL
 * THE COMPTON-EFFECT AND AUTODYNAMICS
 * PHYSICS ESSAYS 6 (3): 384-388 SEP 1993
 * Times Cited: 0
 * CAREZANI RL
 * THE MUON DECAY MU+-]E+E+E- AND AUTODYNAMICS
 * PHYSICS ESSAYS 5 (1): 19-25 MAR 1992
 * Times Cited: 1

Three "essays" by the same author in the same "journal", and the one citation these three articles receive is a self-citation, the 1997 essay cites the 1992 essay. pretty clear pseudoscience. Salsb 9 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

IS not and vanity press publishing journal.

"Given there "peer-review" policy, it is hard to consider Physics Essays as anything else. Furthermore, after conducting a citation search, I found a total of four papers from this entire journal, since 1992, for which I could identify citations outside the journal. Three of those papers were cited by papers that never had another citation. The remaining one paper was cited once as part of a list of articles dealing with the origin of the second law, with no other disscussion. This is the whole contribution of Physics essays to the rest of the scientific community.Virtually all individual scientific papers have a better citation record than this entire journal Salsb 20:00, 9 July 2005 (UTC)"

Good news: 3 of Carezani papers (1) that he sent to the International Conference in Moscow on June-July 2003 sponsored by the "Bauman Moscow State Technical University", Physics Department, and approved to be read in the Congress were published in "Proceedings of International Scientific Meeting PIRT-2003.

(1).- Extra Gravitational Tug. Graviton Velocity and Gravity Speed. The Principle of Equivalence

Congrats to Carezani!

-David http://groups.yahoo.com/group/autodynamics/message/1879

Still doesn't change the fact that they aren't cited in peer reviewed journals, since proceedings are not peer-reviewed. You also might be aware that most physics conferences are open to anyone who wishes to attend or present, and any ones paper or abstract -- depends on the conference -- will be published in a bulletin or proceedings. The annual meeting of the American Physical Society usually has a session just for people presenting unpublishable work. . Salsb 01:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Attacking a journal of physics essays is not the best way to criticize AD. By attacking physics essays you are criticizing  everyone that has  been publish in the  Journal. Also the best way to prove or disprove autodynamics is to do the New RaE Experiment.

Volume 1 Number 4 December 1988 A New Experiment With RaE p.269

You are correct this is not directly relevant to the validity of autodynamics as such. However, an anon poster, prehaps you, prehaps someone else, presented Physics Essays as a normal reputable journal. This is rather clearly not the case, and evaluating the quality of references is critical in writing and evaluating claims. That autodynamics does not become published in normal journals is important in demonstrating it is not a part of science, rather it is pseudoscientific. Although it appears to me that autodynamics is being presented in a positive light in this article, while also pointing out that it is not accepted by scientists. Salsb 16:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Please show any links, articles physicist etc. that show Physics Essays is a bad journal....


 * See above, its so-called "peer-review" policy, and its poor citation record by other journals makes that it clear thar Physics Essays is not a reputable source. {and you do have a physicist telling you about the quality of this "journal" } 22:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll second that. For illustration, go to SPIRES, http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/hep/search/, the main database for high-energy and theoretical physics literature.  They don't even include Physics Essays in their default list of journals.  The lack of peer review means that papers, including Carezani's, are not checked for accuracy, and the journal is well-known for publishing pseudo-scientific, pseudo-philosophical nonsense.

OT

W. W. Buechner and R. J. Van de Graaff, Physical Review 70:3-4 {1946), Calorimetric Experiment on the Radiation Losses of 2-MeV Electrons

Physical Review Volume 70, Numbers 3 and 4 August 1 and 15, 1946

Calorimetric Experiment on the Radiation Losses of 2-MeV Electrons [1]

W. W. Buechner and R. J. Van de Graaff

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

(Received May 21, 1946)

Abstract

Various investigators report from cloud-chamber experiments that the energy lost in the scattering of 2-Mev beta rays is several times the loss calculated from the Bethe-Heitler theory. However, other experimenters have found that the production of x-rays in this range agrees with theory. To account for the extra energy loss, Klarmann and Bothe and Champion have suggested the emission of neutrinos as well as x-rays. To test this hypothesis, a 2-Mev beam of electrons was directed on a target immersed in mercury, the assembly acting as a calorimeter. Experiments using beryllium, gold, and mercury targets show that within the experimental error, which is somewhat less than one percent, no energy is carried out of the calorimeter by neutrinos or other penetrating radiation. It thus appears that the production of such radiations cannot account for the large extra energy losses reported from cloud-chamber experiments.

I don't know why this abstract is here. It's the one cited in the article, which autodynamics proponents cite, but which is completely consistent with current scientific understanding. If neutrinos had been detected that would have been novel, and would have confirmed a new hypothesis. Salsb 23:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Freddie Salsbury, assistant professor at Wake Forest University, you cannot figure out why someone placed that abstract here? On your authority (let me laugh...or cry?), Phys Essays, and maybe Phys Rev are not (I quote your hilarious wording) "normal reputable journals"??? In which "normal reputable journals" have you published?  I need to know urgently if you are normal and reputable...209.29.95.52 16:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity
William Connolley: I would like to know were is your objectivity regarding deprecatory statements about Autodynamics which are not referenced, have no name attributions and are in factual error?209.29.95.52 16:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreement on skeptic lit
I do agree with your remove of the phrase about absence of skeptical literature, without a citation it does not seem appropriatly neutral to be here. However, despite what your claims, no one has made any claims about Phy Rev being not reptuable, and there is a considerable difference between publishing a theory in phys rev -- which autodynamics has not done -- and citing a publication in phys rev. Salsb 16:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you Fred. I'm almost convinced that I have met someone civilized. Still your comments about Phys Essays is specious. What should equally concern you as a physicist is the bias that is carefreely exercized by discarding genuine attempts at new science on the basis of what Wired reports or Google lists.  Sad day for science. 209.29.95.52 17:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Would the anon provide the reference on Alvarez before Fred reverts the text? 209.29.95.52 17:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Anon --- First, I am not on a first name basis with you, so please refrain, especially given your insistence on anonomity. I have a compromise text on the page. Both sides are presented in a non-argumentative fashion. Also I made it clear that Wired is a popular magazine, removed the government employee addition as 1) it is irrelevant 2) I think that SLAC faculty are actually Stanford employees technically. Much as LBL faculty as University of California employees. Cite Alvarez and I will add it in. I would consider this in the category of pseudophysics, but I will let other editors make the call on that Salsb 17:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's anonymity, right? I would glad remove my hood, if all admins that come in to repeat the same hardline were not equally hooded. I'll call you Dr. Salbst, and you can call me Dr. Anonymous. How's that to keep it civilized?  And in civilized terms, I am not the Anon who wrote or posted that text. Here's what I think about your comments above: being a government employee is and should be something rather relevant, as you're paid to defend a POV, the POV of the official hardline. One does not have to look far to see what happens to science in the hands of State officials and employees, scientists included...

www.autodynamics.org/html/timeline.html
 * References include:

www.autodynamicsuk.org/RaduimE.htm

For further information, you will need to contact the Society for the Advancement of Autodynamics to inquire whether the Alvarez/Carezani correspondence has been mounted to the web with English/Spanish translations.


 * These citations appear support something such as "autodynamics proponents claim that Alvarez considered the experiments worthwhile" Salsb 17:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, let's be objective Dr. Salsb: who gave Noyes a mandate to speak for a majority of scientists? Wired magazine? And Lee Smolin - basking in the glory of his father - he's regarded as non-mainstream also because of his views of the New Aether.  He is not a rep of mainstream science. And then, why not call them "detractors of Autodynamics", since that is what they are, if you call the others "proponents"?  See here, I'm no proponent of Autodynamics; I find it very interesting, even find error with it, but would never call it pseudo-science, because I admit it could be right; as right as relativity. Are you a detractor of Autodynamics? Do you oppose serious consideration of its contentions? 209.29.95.52 17:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's be objective; to attach his name and say quoted by obviously makes it personal opnion. I have been going for the neutral phrase supporters myself not proponents. Salsb 17:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I leave that up to you and the other Anon. But I'll give you my thoughts: 1. Why is Noyes "saying" and not "claiming" when he claims to speak for a majority of scientists?? 2. Does he? Was he a spokesmen for the official governmental line of science?  Or he was expressing his personal opinion? 3. Why are the detractors (Noyes and Smolin) not called detractors, if the others are supporters and yet may include those who do not support the theory but think that it should be given serious consideration? 4. Why do you not reference Alvarez himself, since he wrote in support of Carezani's efforts? His letters are referenced and referenceable. 209.29.95.52 18:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Dr.Salsb: this time I do not think you improved it. The "their" is no longer syntactically correct. What's wrong with "There has been no definitive experimental proof that would render either of Carezani's or Noyes' views the last word on the matter"? 209.29.95.52 18:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Dr. Anonymous...